Redemption fine and penalty for repeated restricted imports restored after CESTAT found lower reduction unjustified.

Repeated imports of restricted goods without valid import licences warranted deterrent confiscation consequences, and the reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the lower appellate authority was not justified. CESTAT treated the multifunction machines as goods covered by the import restriction applicable to photocopiers and noted that confiscation had already been upheld. It held that the original authority's fines in the 20% to 30% range and penalties in the 5% to 25% range were neither arbitrary nor unreasonable in view of repeated unauthorised imports. The lower appellate authority's interference was therefore set aside and the original fines and penalties were restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the lower appellate authority was justified in respect of repeated imports of restricted goods without valid import licences.

Analysis: The imported multifunction machines were treated as goods covered by the import restriction applicable to photocopiers, and the confiscation was already upheld. The only question was whether the reduction of redemption fine and penalty to 15% and 5% respectively could stand. The Bench held that repeated unauthorised imports justified deterrent fines and penalties, and that the original authority's imposition of fines in the range of 20% to 30% and penalties in the range of 5% to 25% was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Reliance was placed on the earlier Tribunal view that similar reductions were unjustified in cases of repeated offences and that the lower appellate authority's interference was not warranted.

Conclusion: The reduction of redemption fine and penalty was unjustified and was set aside. The original orders imposing the higher fines and penalties were restored.

---